The "information wants to be free" discourse of just under 30 years ago feels so charmingly naive now that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow.
What exactly is this "information wants to be free" discourse? The arguments for and against freedom of speech as a foundational social principle span at least 300 continuous years.
The discussions about intellectual property rights are quite recent, but the idea that "lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow" was well-explored over 300 years of discussions about freedom of speech (and not only discussions, but also jailings, executions, witch hunts, etc).
I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today—when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country—is much different than 300 years ago. The “information wants to be free” motivation is much closer to the world of today than the one in your distant past.
More importantly, I don’t understand why you’re so hung up on that. What difference does it make? If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important? It doesn’t matter to the discussion, it’s only distracting from the point.
> I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today much different than 300 years ago.
Of course, so what? If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today, I would say it is pretty obviously completely wrong.
> when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country
Did people in England and France use to know the authors of seditious pamphlets that were produced in the Dutch Republic and smuggled into those countries? Most of them were anonymous. Not only they didn't know the authors, the authors 100% were enabled by foreign actors.
> it’s only distracting from the point
The point: we've seen recently how damaging the fast spread of lies is therefore only naive fools would be against information control. My rebuttal: we've seen how damaging lies are for 300 years, yet it is a deep ongoing debate that many great thinkers contributed to, therefore it is not just a matter of fools believing into something.
Or do you see "the point" to be something different?
Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea. It’s merely anchoring it to something recent HN readers have a good likelihood of being acquainted with. It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.
I’ll ask again:
> If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important?
> No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made.
How is that irrelevant if the whole statement is literally about when the arguments were first made and supposedly disproven?
> Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea.
It literally says __now__ that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow, as if it is something recent.
> It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.
If someone says that our views on colonialism were naive before Avatar 2 changed our perception of Avatar, of course it is fair to mention Pocahontas and 300 years of nuanced discussions of colonialism.
I’ve now asked you the same simple question twice, with extra emphasis the second time. It’s not a complex question, it’s not a gotcha, it’s not an attack, it’s a clear question to determine the crux of the disagreement and find consensus.
Yet you continue to not answer it, and I can only guess it is deliberate since you clearly read the comment if you quote so much of it.
So I have a new question: What is the point of continuing to engage with you if you refuse to answer the most basic of queries to clarify your point?
I thought I have clearly explained that I completely disagree with the claim and its entire framing. Not sure what you mean by conclusion that I supposedly agree with.
Why do you assuming only true information is information. Information can be anything not to mention that the definition of truths and lies can change with time and location.
And who shall we appoint at the supreme arbitrator of what is lie and what is knowledge?
Some of us remember when they assured us that the novel virus in china was not to be afraid of.
Some of us remember when they assured us ivermectin could cure it.
And hydroxychloroquine before that.
And it wasn't, until it was. Before Covid-19 we had SARS and MERS, both of which were also watched closely but those didn't develop into a pandemic.
> And who shall we appoint at the supreme arbitrator of what is lie and what is knowledge?
Ask the parents of the Sandy Hook children, they'll tell you.
Truly something we still have to figure out. Attention budget is real and things can get buried. The really big problem of our time.
What exactly is this "information wants to be free" discourse? The arguments for and against freedom of speech as a foundational social principle span at least 300 continuous years.
> What exactly is this "information wants to be free" discourse?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free
> The arguments for and against freedom of speech
It’s not about freedom of speech but about access to information.
The discussions about intellectual property rights are quite recent, but the idea that "lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow" was well-explored over 300 years of discussions about freedom of speech (and not only discussions, but also jailings, executions, witch hunts, etc).
I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today—when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country—is much different than 300 years ago. The “information wants to be free” motivation is much closer to the world of today than the one in your distant past.
More importantly, I don’t understand why you’re so hung up on that. What difference does it make? If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important? It doesn’t matter to the discussion, it’s only distracting from the point.
> I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today much different than 300 years ago.
Of course, so what? If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today, I would say it is pretty obviously completely wrong.
> when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country
Did people in England and France use to know the authors of seditious pamphlets that were produced in the Dutch Republic and smuggled into those countries? Most of them were anonymous. Not only they didn't know the authors, the authors 100% were enabled by foreign actors.
> it’s only distracting from the point
The point: we've seen recently how damaging the fast spread of lies is therefore only naive fools would be against information control. My rebuttal: we've seen how damaging lies are for 300 years, yet it is a deep ongoing debate that many great thinkers contributed to, therefore it is not just a matter of fools believing into something.
Or do you see "the point" to be something different?
> If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today
No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made. And reread the original:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550066
Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea. It’s merely anchoring it to something recent HN readers have a good likelihood of being acquainted with. It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.
I’ll ask again:
> If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important?
> No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made.
How is that irrelevant if the whole statement is literally about when the arguments were first made and supposedly disproven?
> Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea.
It literally says __now__ that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow, as if it is something recent.
> It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.
If someone says that our views on colonialism were naive before Avatar 2 changed our perception of Avatar, of course it is fair to mention Pocahontas and 300 years of nuanced discussions of colonialism.
I’ve now asked you the same simple question twice, with extra emphasis the second time. It’s not a complex question, it’s not a gotcha, it’s not an attack, it’s a clear question to determine the crux of the disagreement and find consensus.
Yet you continue to not answer it, and I can only guess it is deliberate since you clearly read the comment if you quote so much of it.
So I have a new question: What is the point of continuing to engage with you if you refuse to answer the most basic of queries to clarify your point?
I thought I have clearly explained that I completely disagree with the claim and its entire framing. Not sure what you mean by conclusion that I supposedly agree with.
popular refrain around the "Free Kevin" era ca. 1999 or so. See also "Boycott RIAA" etc.
I shared its optimism and naivete :-(
Why do you assuming only true information is information. Information can be anything not to mention that the definition of truths and lies can change with time and location.
My point is that in the late '90s that was the prevailing assumption about the growth of the internet. We have learned that this assumption was wrong.
> the definition of truths and lies can change with time and location
This is moral relativism.